DDR Museum Berlin

In the summer of 2006 a new permanent exhibition on East Germanhistory opened its doors on the banks of the river Spree, justa frog's jump away from the Berliner Dom and the slowly disappearingPalast der Republik. The DDR Museum¹ sets out to show all facetsof life and growing up in the German Democratic Republic inbasement premises measuring just 400m². The exhibition is composed of seventeen thematic areas, rangingfrom earnest topics such as ‘border’, ‘statesecurity’ and ‘construction’ to the more diverting‘fashion’, ‘consumer goods’ and ‘holidays’.The whole space is designed as a miniature pre-fabricated housingdevelopment, the facades of which incorporate display cabinetsand drawers inviting visitors to explore their contents. Eachthematic area is given roughly the same space, and consequentlythe GDR's dozen or so popular bands get about as much room asthe Stasi.     

Soziale Stadtentwicklung in Berlin

Abstrakt Sp?testens seit es in den Problemquartieren mehrerer franz?sischer St?dte zu andauernden Unruhen kam, rückte die soziale Entwicklung in den Stadtteilen auch in Deutschland vermehrt ins Bewu?tsein von Politik und Bev?lkerung. So hat sich die neue Bundesregierung zum Bund-L?nder-Programm „Soziale Stadt“ bekannt und führt es zun?chst weiter. Dipl.-Geogr. Ute C. Bauer sprach mit Dipl.-Ing. Kurt Nelius, Stadtplaner im Referat I A, Stadtentwicklungsplanung und Bodenwirtschaft in der Berliner Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, über die Schwierigkeiten in den Quartieren der Stadt und Ans?tze zu ihrer L?sung.     

A Berlin for Historians

On his death in 1997 Isaiah Berlin was widely hailed as a leading philosopher of political liberalism. This article takes the position that Berlin's philosophical views, particularly those on freedom and cultural pluralism, can also be construed as a valuable guide for historians working in the present, "postmodernist" climate of debate. It further argues that Berlin's character and career, the subjects already of considerable critical inquiry, lend added authority to these views. The focus is on three lengthy essays on history written by Berlin in the 1950s, one of which was first published in the first issue of this journal. The article concludes, following Berlin, that it is the responsibility of historians, as historians, to recognize the often incommensurate plurality of ultimate values to which their fellow human beings historically have subscribed and to judge, as judge they sometimes must, with that recognition fully in mind. If the result of these as well as the other choices that they make is a plurality of histories, of contending subjects, approaches, methods, and outcomes, that is only to be expected, indeed welcomed. It is freedom in practice, and infinitely preferable as such to any known alternative.     

From Berlin to Beijing

In late 1900, while foreign troops occupied Beijing in the wake of the Boxer Rebellion, alarming news reached the German government from China: High-quality works of art were on sale in Beijing and would soon be displayed in museums in London and Paris without having a comparable display in Berlin. The Ethnological Museum in Berlin immediately sent the Orientalist Friedrich Wilhelm Karl Müller (1863–1930) as an envoy to Beijing to buy works of art. Müller was in Beijing between 6 April and 13 September 1901. This article contains a partially annotated translation of Müller’s report, including his packing lists of 117 crates he sent to Berlin in 1901. The original German text is included as an addendum.     

Isaiah Berlin and the totalitarian mind

One of the important—yet often underestimated—dimensions of the intellectual legacy of Isaiah Berlin is his contribution to the demystification of the totalitarian temptation in the twentieth century. This paper starts with an apparent paradox: Berlin is described as a major figure of the anti‐totalitarian camp, yet his writings nowhere touch explicitly on the totalitarian regimes of his time. Nonetheless, it is argued that Berlin's notion of “monism,” and his unique insight into the totalitarian mind, are an indirect yet valuable contribution to the understanding of the appeal exercised by totalitarianism within the modern political imagination. Despite Berlin's highly contestable account of the origins of monism—which he situates in the Enlightenment movement—it is asserted that Berlin's denunciation of utopias remains very much pertinent in light of the emergence of new fundamentalist utopias in a post 9/11 world. Consequently, there are grounds from which to dismiss those claims according to which Berlin's work belongs to an age—that of the Cold War—unfamiliar to the present.     

Emigrated neuroscientists from Berlin to North America

ABSTRACT

The highest number of German scholars and physicians, forced by the National Socialist regime to emigrate for “race” or political reasons, were from Berlin. Language and medical exams were requested differently in their new host country—the United States—leading to a concentration of immigrants in the New York and Boston areas. Very early Emergency Committees in Aid of German Scholars and Physicians were established. Undergraduate students (like F. A. Freyhan, H. Lehmann, and H.-L. Teuber) from Berlin seemed to integrate easily, in contrast to colleagues of more advanced age. Some of the former chiefs and senior assistants of Berlin’s neurological departments could achieve a successful resettlement (C. E. Benda, E. Haase, C. F. List, and F. Quadfasel) and some a minor degree of success (F. H. Lewy and K. Goldstein). A group of neuropsychiatrists from Bonhoeffer’s staff at the Berlin Charité Hospital could rely on the forceful intercession of their former chief. The impact of the émigré colleagues on North American neuroscience is traced in some cases. Apart from the influential field of psychoanalysis, a more diffuse infiltration of German and European neuropsychiatry may be assumed. The contribution to the postwar blossoming of neuropsychology by the émigré neuroscientists K. Goldstein, F. Quadfasel, and H.-L. Teuber is demonstrated in this article.     

Berlin: Town planning under particular conditions

The development of the Berlin conurbation as a unified living and economic area was interrupted for over 40 years. The reshaping of the old and new capital of Germany is not only to be seen under the aspects of continuity or discontinuity, but also in the context of the reinforced tradition of federalism and decentralism in Germany, and of competition with other European cities. The task of the reintegration of three different parts—West Berlin, East Berlin and the surrounding countryside—requires new concepts for the region and the city. Programmes and draft plans for the entire conurbation as well as the rebuilding and redesigning of the old city centre in accordance with both history and the future function are discussed. How and in what period of time the different plans and measures will be realized remains to be seen. In the meantime, well-thought out options for long-term development have to compete with propositions promising strong impulses for quick economic recovery.     

Berlin: The Metropolis as a Production Space

Metropolitan regions can be regarded as economic areas comprising various sub-economies with different forms of economic and spatial organization. The purpose of this article is to undertake a critical appraisal of the vision of Berlin as a 'service metropolis' through empirical observation of sectoral trends and locational patterns in the city, and to establish that Berlin's urban area is a major production space with a complex fabric of specialized production districts. This spatial organization will be examined in terms of the level of agglomeration of various sub-economies with special reference to the formation of local enterprise clusters in the Berlin economic area. Berlin's specialization profile and the employment trend in the city compared with other metropolitan cities in Germany make it clear that the metropolis of Berlin is under threat as a production space, and this threat partly stems from the way in which the real estate business has developed in the Berlin area.     

Founding Years of Clinical Neurology in Berlin Until 1933

During the so-called “Gründerjahre” or “founding years” in Berlin it became necessary to build new hospitals because of the rapid growth of population. As a result, several infirmaries, asylums for the insane and institutions for epileptics were built between 1877 and 1912. The new building of the University Neuropsychiatric Clinic (“Nervenklinik”) of the Charité was opened in 1905 according to plans made by Friedrich Jolly (1844–1904), the physician who named myasthenia gravis pseudoparalytica. A “Neurological Central Station”, under the direction of Oskar and Cecil Vogt, in existence since 1898, was a research center dedicated more to morphology. There the study of the structure of the cerebral cortex by Korbinian Brodmann (1868–1925) and research into basal ganglia diseases by the Vogts began. The Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for Cerebral Research, which moved into a new building in 1931, also had its origin here. Hermann Oppenheim (1858–1919) promoted independent clinical neurology, as did his younger contemporary, Max Lewandowsky (1876–1918), who was already advising physician for neurology at the Berlin-Friedrichshain Hospital. Hugo Liepmann (1863–1925), the creator of apraxia theory, worked at the asylums for the insane in Dalldorf (Berlin-Wittenau) and Berlin-Herzberge. In 1911, the first neurological unit was established in the large hospital in Berlin-Buch under the direction of Otto Maas. Not until after World War I were further neurological hospital units founded, under the direction of Paul Schuster (1867–1940), Kurt Goldstein (1878–1965), Kurt Löwenstein (died in 1953) and Friedrich Heinrich Lewy (1885–1950). These Jewish physicians, as well as C.E. Benda and Otto Maas, had to leave their posts in 1933 and emigrate. The clinical institutions and scientific achievements of these pioneers of independent clinical neurology will be presented up to the point of its violent dissolution.     

反思历史的德国柏林墙

<正>柏林墙是二战以后德国分裂和冷战的重要标志性建筑,天下人莫不晓之。自倒塌之日起,柏林墙所剩无几,只留断垣残壁。现存最长的一段位于施普雷河之畔。凡来柏林者必往此处凭吊和参观。前不久,笔者采风路过柏林,也专程来此一游,终尝多年拜访夙愿,深以为撼。世界上最大的露天画廊到达柏林的第二天一早我就来到了这段残留的柏林墙前。自柏林东站起行,不出数步,便至施普雷河畔,东面画廊即入眼帘,蜿蜒而立。1990年9月28日,来自21个国家的180位艺术家在长达1316米的柏林墙上,创作了不同主     

Founding years of clinical neurology in Berlin until 1933

During the so-called "Gründerjhare" or "founding years" in Berlin it became necessary to build new hospitals because of the rapid growth of population. As a result, several infirmaries, asylums for the insane and institutions for epileptics were build between 1877 and 1912. The new building of the University of Neuropsychiatric Clinic ("Nervenklinik") of the Charité was opened in 1905 according to plans made by Friedrich Jolly (1844-1904), the physician who named myasthenia gravis pseudoparalytica. A "Neurological Central Station", under the direction of Oskar and Cecil Vogt, in existence since 1898, was a research center dedicated more to morphology. There the study of the structure of the cerebral cortex by Korbinian Brodmann (1868-1925) and research into basal ganglia diseases by the Vogts began. The Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for Cerebral Research, which moved into a new building in 1931, also had its origin here. Hermann Oppenheim (1858-1919) promoted independent clinical neurology, as did his younger contemporary, Max Lewandowsky (1876-1918), who was already advising physician for neurology at the Berlin-Friedrichshain Hospital. Hug Liepmann (1863-1925), the creator of apraxia theory, worked at the asylums for the insane in Dalldorf (Berlin-Wittenau) and Berlin-Herzberge. In 1911, the first neurological unit was established in the large hospital in Berlin-Buch under the direction of Otto Maas. Not until after World War I were further neurological hospital units founded, under the direction of Paul Schuster (1867-1940), Kurt Goldstein (1878-1965), Kurt L?wenstein (died in 1953) and Friedrich Heinrich Lewy (1885-1950). These Jewish physicians, as well as C.E. Benda and Otto Maas, had to leave their posts in 1933 and emigrate. The clinical institutions and scientific achievements of these pioneers of independent clinical neurology will be presented up to the point of its violent dissolution.